Karnataka Court September 1988 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Venkappa Shettigar Vs. Special Tahsildar for Land Reforms
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-09-1988
Reported in: ILR1989KAR1308; 1989(1)KarLJ14
ORDERK.A. Swami, J.Though this petition is posted for orders, having regard to the fact that it can be disposed or on a short point, it is heard for a final disposal.1. In this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution the petitioner has sought for the following relief s:-a) to issue a Writ of certiorari quashing the impugned endorsement, Annexure-A dated 2-7-1987 passed by 1st respondent in EDIS-KLR(2) - CR-62-87-88.b) to issue a Writ in the nature of mandamus or any other Writ, order or direction directing the Respondents 1 and 2 to consider the claim of the petitioner as made in Annexure-B in accordance with law after reconstructing the Form No. VII with the help of Annexure-B.c) for such other and further reliefs as this Hon'ble Court deems fit to grant under the circumstances of the case including an order for costs. 2. Annexure-A is an endorsement issued by the Special Tahsildar, Land Reforms, Udupi, dated 2-7-1987 bearing No. EDS.KLR (2) CR:62/87-88 informing the p...
Thomas D' Castelino Vs. Special Deputy Commissioner
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-08-1988
Reported in: ILR1988KAR2936
ORDERBalakrishna, J.1. This Writ Petition is directed against the order dated 14-11-1984 passed by the Special Deputy Commissioner Dakshina Kannada, Mangalore (Respondent No. 1) and also against the order dated 15-7-1985 passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Mysore Division, Mysore (Respondent No. 2) apart from challenging the final statement dated 25-7-1985 as well as the notification dated 2-9-1985 of respondent-1.2. Paul Castelino executed a settlement deed dated 16-5-1931 settling landed property in favour of Martin Castelino measuring 30 cents of land in Sy.No. 77/13; 19 cents of land in Sy.No. 77/14; 52 cents of land in Sy.No. 262-1; 1.95 acres of land in Sy.No. 262-4 and 11 cents of land in Sy.No. 249-2 in the village Padavu, situated within the Mangalore Urban Agglomeration. In the schedule to the said settlement deed is shown a house with thatched roofing and cattle-shed. On 22-5-1970, the properties were partitioned between the brothers. The properties were allotted to the p...
Sri Krishna Vilas Tourist Hotel and anr. Vs. State of Karnataka and or ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-02-1988
Reported in: ILR1989KAR1214
S.R. Rajasekhara Murthy, J.1. The petitioners in these writ petitions are hoteliers running restaurants with a lodge attached. The assessments for the years 1976-77 and 1978-79 completed under section 12(3) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 ('the Act' for short), are challenged in these writ petitions. The writ petitions are entertained in view of the additional grounds urged in these petitions, raising the question of validity of section 2(t) of the Act, as amended by Act 23 of 1983, being ultra vires of section 4 of the Constitution (Forty-sixth Amendment) Act, 1982. 2. The challenge is also to the validity of explanation (3A) inserted by Karnataka Act 23 of 1983 to the definition of 'sale' in the Act which was inserted with retrospective effect from 1st October, 1957. 3. Explanation (3A), reads as follows : 'Every transaction of supply by way of or as a part of any service or in any other manner whatsoever, of goods, being food or any other article for human consumption or any dr...
Sha M. Hastimal and Co. and ors. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Commercial ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-01-1988
Reported in: [1989]72STC308(Kar)
ORDERRajasekhara Murthy, J.1. Petitioners in these writ petitions are dealers in jari. The petitioners purchase the jari goods from Surat and effect sales within the State. On the returns the petitioners disclosed the turnover in sale of jari which is exigible to levy as 'gold-thread' falling under entry 49 of the Second Schedule. Assessments were completed in respect of each of the petitioners bringing to tax the sale of gold-thread at 4 per cent under entry 49 of the Second Schedule. 2. These assessment orders are now sought to be revised by the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Bangalore, in exercise of his powers under section 21(4) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 ('the Act'). These notices are challenged in these writ petitions. 3. The reason for invoking the revisional jurisdiction by the Deputy Commissioner, as is seen from the notices is, that there was an error in the assessment of the sale turnover in gold-thread under entry 49 of the Second Schedule and that the ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›